Meeting the increasing need for training in obstetric medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As increasing numbers of women of child-bearing age enter pregnancy with chronic medical conditions and an increasing number are overweight or obese, the role of obstetric medicine expands as well. The challenge to safely prepare these women for pregnancy, care for them during pregnancy and develop plans for their long-term care will be enormous. We must be able to develop a workforce across disciplines to answer this need. In the latest UK Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths,1 in which the individual deaths were reviewed in detail, ‘the assessors were struck by the number of health care professionals who appeared to fail to be able to identify and manage common medical conditions or potential emergencies outside their immediate area of expertise’. In this edition of the journal, we are pleased to publish ‘Validation of a Canadian Curriculum in Obstetric Medicine’. This is an instrument specific to Canadian Residency training that has had country-wide validation. In addition, there have been contributions from the North American and the International Society of Obstetric Medicine's work on an international curriculum, spearheaded by our UK editor-in-chief, Professor Catherine Nelson-Piercy, and by Professor Raymond Powrie of the USA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".